Why do so many Christians feel so compelled to persecute and attack other Christians who don't agree
- Thread starter Eric86
- Start date
Some people need definite answers, in order to feel safe in the world. So, as with any organised religion, many Christians ascribe to the 'set menu' of doctrine put in front of them, the one-size-fits-all faith, that allows them to feel part of a group of people who all believe the same thing, to reinforce the idea that they are right in their beliefs.
So if you throw a free-thinker into that mix, then of course there will be trouble. The pre-packaged believers don't want to know about other options. They don't want to think about other ways of seeing things. They just want people to agree with them, so they can maintain their religious bubble, and feel certain that by doing what they are doing, they are going to 'heaven'.
All I can say is, if you're not one of them, don't go to their meetings. Join up with other free thinkers and find the support that you need.
So if you throw a free-thinker into that mix, then of course there will be trouble. The pre-packaged believers don't want to know about other options. They don't want to think about other ways of seeing things. They just want people to agree with them, so they can maintain their religious bubble, and feel certain that by doing what they are doing, they are going to 'heaven'.
All I can say is, if you're not one of them, don't go to their meetings. Join up with other free thinkers and find the support that you need.
I would say that this is more of a case of people themselves being corrupt and hard-hearted.
Well yeah, Sure.
But really, any large group of people who believe the same thing are going to turn corrupt in some shape or form. Individuals are genius, society is idiotic.
This one is easy, and not confined to religion.
Say group A has a general demographic, or a certain ideological base. Now let's say group B is enough like group A to have a similar/comparable demographic or ideological base, but is different in some very noticeable ways. Now let's say group C is so different that it has a completely different demographic or ideological base.
Group C and groups A and B will probably feel very opposed to each other, but they will see this as normal and accept it as fact. It won't be something that bothers them, because it's part of a general "opposed" category.
Groups A and B will not only be aware of their disagreements, however, but will feel more personally confronted, because it is drawing on some of the same base with (apparently) false ideas. It will likely seem horribly wrong that a trend could be so close yet so far off to the point of being able to distort the truth.
Say group A has a general demographic, or a certain ideological base. Now let's say group B is enough like group A to have a similar/comparable demographic or ideological base, but is different in some very noticeable ways. Now let's say group C is so different that it has a completely different demographic or ideological base.
Group C and groups A and B will probably feel very opposed to each other, but they will see this as normal and accept it as fact. It won't be something that bothers them, because it's part of a general "opposed" category.
Groups A and B will not only be aware of their disagreements, however, but will feel more personally confronted, because it is drawing on some of the same base with (apparently) false ideas. It will likely seem horribly wrong that a trend could be so close yet so far off to the point of being able to distort the truth.
I suspect that it is because many so-called Christians don't actually believe what they say they do. I infer this from the tendency of people to become very aggitated and aggressive when trying to convince someone to go along with a cover-up or lie.
Stating/explaining one's beliefs that are different from another's may imply a critique of the belief of the other, but that is very different from attacking.
I am a Catholic and other Christians and ex-Christians constantly criticize my faith and try to tell me that I am responsible for any bad thing any Catholic has ever done.
Frustrating.
Last edited:
There isn't much room for improvement when dealing with absolutes.
Religion, in an of itself, can be an extraordinary thing, but when ignorance comes into the mix, then as history has shown us, there is no limit to the damage that religion can cause. Unfortunately, most people are ignorant of their own religion and so any questioning of it is met with falsified certainty. Other religions are seen as a constant reminder of the uncertainty one has in their own religion, and the natural human reaction is to persecute those who don't agree with your particular way of thinking.
Religion, in an of itself, can be an extraordinary thing, but when ignorance comes into the mix, then as history has shown us, there is no limit to the damage that religion can cause. Unfortunately, most people are ignorant of their own religion and so any questioning of it is met with falsified certainty. Other religions are seen as a constant reminder of the uncertainty one has in their own religion, and the natural human reaction is to persecute those who don't agree with your particular way of thinking.
Last edited:
"The natural human reaction is to persecute those who don't agree with your particular way of thinking"
It may be natural for specific types of people, and possibly even for most types, but not for all types of people. I would think it probable an infj would act differently. I do not persecute those that believe in God differently than I do, but may possibly be the exception rather than the rule??
Yes, ignorance can mess up a lot of things. Pride added to the mix and we have chaos. A lot of people may not fully understand their religion, and a lot of people may be new to a religion; "ignorance" may seem a bit harsh to me; yet, use "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and I have no problem with the term, so I may be being a bit protective. Yes, I am being protective.
"Why do so many" ? I do agree it to be a human characteristic. Solution?
Maybe if people were to better understand the many differences they have from each other and the many likenesses they have with each other, it just might be possible to look at others differently. Why do so few people do that?
I see this all the time. A lot of Christian folk tend to judge other Christians more than non-believers. It has to do with the knowledge of the Bible. Some Christians use that as a shield (verbally speaking).
I think the people who at a core level feel the most insecure about their beliefs are the ones often likely to attack someone else for their beliefs. As long as their focus is on how they are more correct than someone else, then the focus is not on who might be more correct than them.
By converse, I think the people who feel most confident in their beliefs are those who constantly challenge others to prove them wrong and thus are not afraid of their beliefs being questioned.
What's the purpose of proving someone else wrong? Why does it matter what they think?
Proving someone wrong is unimportant. What is important is finding truth and deconstructing ignorance.
I feel someone firmly grounded in their beliefs, having studied them rigorously, may challenge authority(if their views differ greatly) moreso than laymen regarding theology. However, this too is an exception to the rule. Said challenge is for edification rather than proof of who is right or wrong.
I think it could be an attitude of "save the corrupt believers", where both sides in an argument see each other as misinterpreting the Bible and corrupting it by spreading a false/heretical message. For example, lets take the issue of homosexuality. A lot of Christians are against it (Group A), while some have no problem with it. Group A see Group B as using holy scripture to advocate "immoral" behaviour, and see them as spreading a false salvation, therefore damning homosexuals to Hell. Group B see Group A as spreading a false message of hate, in contrary to Christ's message of love, and see them as turning homosexuals off Christianity, therefore condemning them to Hell.
It can also be simple doctrinal differences. One example is Darbyists vs Non-Darybists. For the sake of the example, the Darbyists will be right-wing Christians, and the Non-Darybists will be left-wing Christians. Darbyists tend to believe the the world will go to hell in a handbasket before Jesus comes; whereas Non-Darbyists belive that the Kingdom of God will flourish at the same time as the Kingdom of Evil does. This may not sound like much of an important doctrine but it is. Darbyists believe that bringing about social change and justice is at best a waste of time and at worst, heretical (often using the term "perverted Marxist Gospel"). Non-Darbyists believe that Darbyists belive that God instructs us to bring around social change and justice, and see Darbyists as preventing the Kingdom of God from flourishing. So both sides see each other as not living their lives as God intended.
Thats just ridiculous. :tsk:
It can also be simple doctrinal differences. One example is Darbyists vs Non-Darybists. For the sake of the example, the Darbyists will be right-wing Christians, and the Non-Darybists will be left-wing Christians. Darbyists tend to believe the the world will go to hell in a handbasket before Jesus comes; whereas Non-Darbyists belive that the Kingdom of God will flourish at the same time as the Kingdom of Evil does. This may not sound like much of an important doctrine but it is. Darbyists believe that bringing about social change and justice is at best a waste of time and at worst, heretical (often using the term "perverted Marxist Gospel"). Non-Darbyists believe that Darbyists belive that God instructs us to bring around social change and justice, and see Darbyists as preventing the Kingdom of God from flourishing. So both sides see each other as not living their lives as God intended.
Thats just ridiculous. :tsk: